Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddy Yawe


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't think a third relisting will elicit more participation in this discussion so I'm closing it as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Eddy Yawe

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, so notability would have to derive from coverage of him as a musician. Of all the cited sources, only is good in terms of reliability, and it is not independent, extensively quoting from the subject. is a short interview. Indeed, this Mbu website has miscellaneous articles on Yawe, but I don't think it's particularly reliable overall; feels like a Ugandan BuzzFeed. Ovinus (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Politicians. Ovinus (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This article has reliable some reliable sources which include New Vision and The observer which are national newspapers BalukuBrian (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to access for some reason.... Ovinus (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article is in need of cleanup, with The Observer (Uganda) piece and others (eg quoted in Al Jazeera during his brother's detention, discussed in Rolling Stone over his personal history and music career) there's enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tried to clean up the article a bit. Will add those sources if this closes as keep, thanks. Ovinus (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- This piece from The Observer seems okay till you check the Byline which reads as Written by joomlasupport The Jumla Support sounds to me like some news service which makes it dicey for me to relay on the piece rest the Rolling Stone piece and the Aljazeera piece  (which is a dead link) is all about his notable brother Bobi Wine, So its a Soft Delete for me.  Suryabeej      ⋠talk⋡    09:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First, the The Observer is a well established, weekly newspaper in Uganda. Second, Joomla is an open source content management system used for web publishing. There's nothing untoward here, it's simply a reflection that the original journalist's name has not been entered when the article was uploaded and the default system byline appears. Third, if you read the whole attached piece, at the end an email address appears, a simple search of that address leads one to James Tumusiime, a staff member at The Observer from 2006 to 2018 . There's no reason to discount this piece. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well The Observer is considered as one of the RS's but still there is question on the editorial basis that if the staff can provide their email what prevented them from providing the Byline in the article? And what does it takes for the JOOMLA SUPPORT to Support? Rest If we consider The Observer piece as RS too there aren't any other piece available that could be considered as RS so the Observer piece falls in trivial mention in that case. Suryabeej      ⋠talk⋡    08:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A mistaken entry on a byline is no basis to discount the piece from The Observer; BASIC is satisfied. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.